Law:

Section:

  Revision-Limitation-No cause shown for extending time-Revision petition ought to be dismissed.   Lambardar-Appointment-Punjab Land Revenue Rules, r. 17(1) - Matters to be considered while malting appointment.   ORDER   This is a revision petition under section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act against the Commissioner, Rawalpindi Divisions revisional order, dated the 8th August 1961, whereby he set aside the Collector's order, dated 20-9-1955, appointing the petitioner as Lambardar of Patti Ali Ahmad, village Choranwali, Tehsil Gujrat and remanded the case back to him for fresh decision.   The detailed facts are given in the learned Commissioner's order. The respondent's elder brother Muhammad Yousaf as well as his mother Mst. Begum Bibi stated before the revenue officer, as representative of her minor sons (grandsons of Ali Ahmed, deceased Lambardar) that she had no objection to the appointment of Abdullah, petitioner, who was uncle of the respondent. The plea taken by the respondent before the Com missioner is that at the time of appointment of Abdullah, petitioner as Lambardar he was a minor aged 12 or 13 years and lived with his maternal grandmother in Azad Kashmir. He returned to his village on her death in the middle of 1961. He claimed that he did not come to know of the petitioner's appointment as Lambardar until April 1961 ; it was the duty of the Collector to have called for fresh applications when his elder brother Muhammad Yousaf, in September 1955, withdrew his candidature for this hereditary post of Lambardar in favour of the petitioner, as hereditary claims are not a transferable commodity ; and as his mother was not competent to surrender his rights even during his minority, the Collector ought to have safeguarded his interests and appointed him Lambardar in the place of his grandfather.   The learned Commissioner held that Abdullah, Lambardar (petitioner) had not produced any reliable evidence such as the birth certificate in support of his plea that the appellant had come of age in 1956. He held that there is no limitation for a revision petition, as held in 2 P R 1889 (Rev.): He remanded the…